Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

No. Seriously, I pictured GZ as some fumbling goof who dropped his gun. It was later after hearing the link I posted that I imagined him dropping his phone. People do drop guns from time to time. But I should add that my perception of GZ was unfair.

It sure sounds like "phones" to me. Listen to this link. Voice range equalized up, repeats three times with the third iteration slowed to 75% of speed, pitch preserved. Still, don't know why GZ would lie if he really did say "punks". Assuming all that, we ought to have a little humility given how hard voice analysis is.

ETA: Listened again, having primed myself to hear "punks" I'm a little closer to that possibility.

It's so funny, isn't it? I heard the sound of the phone moving around and I imagined he was holding the phone between his shoulder and his ear, the phone slipped, and he said, "*********** phones!" I had the whole situation pictured in my head and was so sure that's what he said. Now listening for punks, I hear punks.

It's so funny, isn't it? I heard the sound of the phone moving around and I imagined he was holding the phone between his shoulder and his ear, the phone slipped, and he said, "*********** phones!" I had the whole situation pictured in my head and was so sure that's what he said. Now listening for punks, I hear punks.

Just saw an interview with Robert Zimmerman, GZ's father. Was local news so not sure what network. He was shielded by shadows and gave the same story GZ gave. TM confronted him, started the fight and GZ shot in self defense. Yelling for help for at least 40 seconds. No one would help him and GZ feared for his life.

Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point.

You, maybe, but we haven't had a double blind test to prove that speech identification works. It still could be phones...

Double blind, isn't that when you take someone and blindfold them twice, and see if they can still do a task???

(Context :

Originally Posted by flabio

I've found someone who is willing to put me through the blindfold test, and should have YT vids up in the next couple of days. The fella who's agreed to test me also has no faith in my ability to dowse what so ever, not unlike everyone here. This should be good, do stay tuned...

Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point.

Just saw an interview with Robert Zimmerman, GZ's father. Was local news so not sure what network. He was shielded by shadows and gave the same story GZ gave. TM confronted him, started the fight and GZ shot in self defense. Yelling for help for at least 40 seconds. No one would help him and GZ feared for his life.

Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point.

The media has claimed a lot of things about what the police and various people have said, in many cases it seems like they simply stick whatever 'controversial' term they want in there, instead of doing research, and fact checking, and limiting themselves to the facts.

It was discussed elsewhere in this thread. It would indicate a struggle for the weapon, with someone holding onto the slide.

Personal anecdote; When I was young and dumb and just learning to shoot, I thought to try holding the slide and see what happened. I got a hell of a cut on my hand as the weapon cycled anyway. More than thirty years later, I can still see the scar. I've seen 'grab the slide' as advice in self defense forums but I think it's highly dubious that it'll prevent the weapon from cycling. The forces involved are more than sufficient to ignore fragile things like skin.

('grab the hammer', another bit of advice I've heard for fighting a man with a revolver sounds more plausible. )

__________________"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells

131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell.

I think I can help you out.

If a non white person has a white sounding last name then that is close enough for major media to call them white.

Major media has no problem with doctoring audio or video to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones.

The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 and then follow that person around then you should expect to get your ass kicked.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and you call 911 and then follow that person around and that person comes toward you and ask if you have a problem you run away. You do not stand there and say no I don't when you obviously do or else you wouldn't be following the person around.

I have no desire to argue it, anymore, because it's starting to feel like walking in the wrong direction on those conveyor belts at the airport. Agree or disagree, my only response will only be to let you know that I read what you had to say.

I was simply saying that Zimmerman may eventually come out with an absolute 100% true account of what happened, and corroborating evidence come to light it to the satisfaction of lots of people, including myself, but there will still be those who will refuse to believe that it wasn't "worse" than whatever that "true" version is.

131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell.

That's true of most forums on this. The police have, wisely, decided to shut up about it, and so all we have left are various pieces of evidence that we've seen before, and hearsay from the families.

But I'll say this much. If someone trailed me in a car, pursued me on foot, and didn't explain themselves before they got into striking distance, I would punch them in the throat. And obviously, a person saying "Hey, sir, you dropped your wallet!" while holding my wallet in front of them, would get the benefit of the doubt - cases like that are irrelevant. But even with the believable stories that Zimmerman's apologists have put forth, I'd regard him as guilty of manslaughter, at the very least.

If a non white person has a white sounding last name then that is close enough for major media to call them white.

Zimmerman is, for all intents and purposes, white. Sorry, but "Hispanic" is not a racial group. There are white people who are Hispanic, like Zimmerman. There are black people who are Hispanic, such as me.

Quote:

Major media has no problem with doctoring audio or video to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

Huh? MSNBC edited one video, and they've apologized for it. The only media group willing to unapologetically edit video and audio is Fox News, which is defending Zimmerman.

Quote:

Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

And they also have no problem showing 3-5 year old photos of the assailant.

Really, this is the weakest claim possible. The media is showing photos that Martin's family chose to give to them. Zimmerman's family has released no photos, so they have nothing but official photos to go with.

Quote:

A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones.

If you decide to chase them around, yes, absolutely. And everyone in the US should have the same right. Zimmerman's actions, even according to his defenders, were insanely provocative.

Quote:

The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view.

This..is just nonsense.

Quote:

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 and then follow that person around then you should expect to get your ass kicked.

Let's be clear. Yes, if you chase after someone, you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you're chasing a violent criminal, then you've angered a violent person. If you're chasing an innocent person (as was the case her), then you're given them a good reason to think that you're a criminal, who is looking to rob or hurt them.

Quote:

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and you call 911 and then follow that person around and that person comes toward you and ask if you have a problem you run away. You do not stand there and say no I don't when you obviously do or else you wouldn't be following the person around.

Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.make sure that the right-wing idiot governor and the state Attorney General are paying attention, and not just shrugging it off as another dead thug.

fify

Quote:

A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones.

When you assume the power to confront the kid just for your own amusement, you need your damned nose (and maybe a few other body parts) broken.

Quote:

The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view.

I just figured he wanted to let those dweebs in Florida know that they were not going to get away with a less-than thorough investigation.

Quote:

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing.

Problem is that the poppinjay was basing his opinon that Martin was dangerous on the advice of his ear crickets.

__________________No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

If you decide to chase them around, yes, absolutely. And everyone in the US should have the same right. Zimmerman's actions, even according to his defenders, were insanely provocative.

-snip-

Let's be clear. Yes, if you chase after someone, you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you're chasing a violent criminal, then you've angered a violent person. If you're chasing an innocent person (as was the case her), then you're given them a good reason to think that you're a criminal, who is looking to rob or hurt them.

According to Zim and 911 call, he didn't actually chased him.

Trayvon ran toward the cut through, then turned right to the sidewalk where F is on. Zim leaves his truck and ran toward E, mistakenly thinking Trayvon headed in that direction when he said: "He’s heading towards the back entrance." at 2:20 in the 911 call. At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T. Confrontation and altercation ensued. And they ended up closer to F. Here is a picture of Trayvon's dad looking at F and you can also see the T.

Also, the innocent part remain to be seen. I'll just leave it at that until more info are released..

I know it's hard to imagine when you have in your head "innocent and scared Trayvon." It's not too hard to imagine if you have in your head "6'3 football player Trayvon" seeing a smaller person trailing him and decides to get tough and confront him. This corroborates Zim's story of Trayvon approaching him from the "left rear." Trayvon could have easily ran home.

Note, I'm not accepting this as truth. It's just the most plausible scenario with the available evidence.

Trayvon ran toward the cut through, then turned right to the sidewalk where F is on. Zim leaves his truck and ran toward E, mistakenly thinking Trayvon headed in that direction when he said: "He’s heading towards the back entrance." at 2:20 in the 911 call. At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T. Confrontation and altercation ensued. And they ended up closer to F. Here is a picture of Trayvon's dad looking at F and you can also see the T.

That makes no sense, given the map that you provided. It's far more likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin into the walkway between the two rows of townhouses. If Zimmeramm had functioning eyes, he would have seen Martin duck between the townhouses. He may have followed, or he may have run to another enterance in order to cut Martin off from the south enterance. But the idea that he was headed back to his truck, given where the fight occured, is laughable.

There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that.

Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version.

Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end.

I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either.

I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

If he can't do the task blindfolded, what kind of so call expert is he?

The real test is the duct tape of his headphones.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that.

Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version.

Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end.

I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either.

I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing.

Agreed, Roadtoad! I've gone back through this thread to try to check on things already posted and it is an adventure. Right now I only know these things to be true:

Trayvon Martin is dead
He was shot by George Zimmerman.

Everything else appears to have dubious credentials.

Wow, you are brave, I have read (or skim read) every post in this thread. But I have done so as the thread evolved.

I see the main issue as this:

-the evidence has been dribbled and spun out, dribbled by the sources and then spun out by everyone else.

I was upset because a 17 yo engaged in daily activities is dead. ( I would be upset if it happened to any one, but I have a 17yo son, so that is a hook) When we go on trips we give our son considerable latitude to explore on his own, like in Newport OR, or Cape Perpetua OR.

Now especially if we were staying in Gainesville FL, where my father lives, I can see us letting him go to the store to get tea and a snack.

So I think it is going to come down to what happens, if you are following someone and a fight breaks out. Who has the culpability.

And this one will be a mess, we only have GZ's testimony. We have the testimony of TM's girlfriend. And then all the unknown forensics that will be revealed at the trial (if there is one).

Now I also have had personal experience in being followed and approached by strangers I find questionable. It usually involves me yelling "NO GET THE HELL AWAY FROM ME" in a very loud voice, getting safe and calling the police.

My own personal feeling is that GZ had every legal right to follow Trayvon, however I am not sure what the legal ramifications are of him approaching TM and questioning him. Especially since we will never know the actual details of that encounter. I do question how it happened that in the process of questioning someone else, a fight ensued.

I again would have been yelling my fool head off.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that.

Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version.

Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end.

I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either.

I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing.

Maybe the first one there was printed with different font type, or size, or whatever, but they both seem to me to say the same thing. I didn't notice anything in the text that was different, just the layout.

Absolutely, Wild Cat. I simply found it interesting that Smith's report didn't make it into the partial report until at least 3 days after the incident. Perhaps that is typical, a delay of some number of days before a responding officer enters his report on events. Seems like a bad idea to have that kind of lag and that you'd want to enter details as soon as possible to have the most accurate and complete account, memory being what it is. And in this case the optics of that delay aren't great, even if it is routine, given the content of that particular officer's report.

That's not the original report, triforcharity. Perhaps I should say it's not the earliest version of the report. That is the one from 3/6. And the font size looks the same to me - there are more witnesses listed on the 3/6 report as well, which I think accounts for the changes in pagination.